The unprecedented ($700 billion+) government bailout of the U.S. financial markets has forced many American voters to ask themselves a tough question: What really is role of government in the American economy? In response, the American people have been sending their government some mixed messages.
Nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the bailout on the grounds that it would have no effect on the crisis and/or would lead to more expensive bailouts. Doesn’t this send a strong message to the federal government about what their role should be in a financial crisis?
Not really. In a survey conducted by the Kauffman Foundation on the days leading up to the bailout, 59 percent of registered, likely voters supported increased government regulation in the financial markets.
But only 14 percent of respondents had confidence in Congress to guide the economy, compared with 56 percent who would rather have a successful small business owner guide the economy.
To summarize, Americans want financial markets regulated – but not bailed out – by a group of individuals they admittedly do not have confidence in to guide the economy.
If that’s not confusing enough, 49.8 percent of American voters post-bailout are supporting Barack Obama (compared with 43 percent for McCain) – the candidate who is, admittedly, advocating for government-funded solutions to health care, energy, and economic concerns.
Even before American taxpayers footed the bill for a 700 billion dollar bailout, Barack Obama proposed funding those added expenses by raising taxes on families and small businesses making more than $250,000 a year (not just the wealthy individuals whose salaries exceeded that).
Fifty percent of Kauffman survey respondents thought that the biggest threat to their personal economic security was a tax increase. Seventy percent think the health of the American economy depends on the success of entrepreneurs.
It seems like Americans want to have it both ways, but I want to know what you think: Can we have a more heavily regulated financial market, if we don’t trust government to guide the economy? How does government “assist” without “bailing out”? Can candidates propose increases in spending at a time like this without doing further damage to the economy?
October 14th, 2008
In recent weeks, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have ramped up efforts to target America’s largest voting demographic: women.
At a townhall meeting in Fairfax, Virgina, Senator Obama introduced his “Plan for Economic Security for America’s Working Women.”
Highlights of Senator Obama’s plan include:
- Increasing federal minimum wage from $7.25 (the amount it will be when the new the President takes office in 2009) to $9.50 by 2011.
- Expanding tax credits to benefit low-income and single mothers including the childcare and earned income tax credits.
- Reducing the cost of health care per family up to a projected $2500, through the implementation of his universal healthcare proposal.
Meanwhile, John McCain offered some straight talk to women in Wisconsin on how his economic agenda – he offers the same plan for all Americans – beats Senator Obama’s in terms of its real impact on American women and their families.
Highlights of Senator McCain’s plan include:
- Reducing taxes that disproportionately burden working families, including eliminating of the Alternative Minimum Tax and doubling the personal tax exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.
- Protecting American industry and jobs by the reduction of the federal Corporate Tax Rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. With the second-highest corporate-tax rate in the industrialized world, America loses business and high-quality jobs to countries with lower tax rates.
- Providing a direct refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of health insurance, in addition to measures aimed at reducing not just the cost of insurance, but also the cost of healthcare delivery.
The two Senators could not be more different in their approaches. Senator Obama’s policies target the 8.5 million women working at minimum wage and single mothers with direct aid. By contrast, Senator McCain’s focus is on the creation of: an economic environment friendly to future and existing women business owners (around 10 million American women), higher paying jobs for women, and a tax code that rewards the economic progress of both single and dual-parent households.
When “Front Lines,” a Wall Street Journal blog for women addressed this issue, one reader commented:
“[Obama’s] plan seems to be geared toward women who expect to make minimum wage while McCain’s plan caters to women with small businesses who employ those who make minimum wage. It sounds like McCain thinks more highly of women.”
While I don’t think that one candidate thinks more highly of women than the other, I do think she made an interesting point.
My question is: Do you agree with her? Is a proposal that benefits women business owners and working families, really the best Women’s Economic Agenda? Why or why not?
Posted by April Green
July 29th, 2008